Warut Somchat v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WARUT SOMCHAT,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70152
Agency No. A095-659-398
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Warut Somchat, a native and citizen of Thailand, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
FILED
SEP 17 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-70152 2
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s determination that an
alien is removable for marriage fraud, Nakamoto v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 874, 881
(9th Cir. 2004), and review de novo due process claims, Barron v. Ashcroft, 358
F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Somchat is
removable for marriage fraud where he admitted to an immigration agent that his
marriage was fraudulent and entered into for purposes of obtaining an immigration
benefit. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(G)(ii); Nakamoto, 363 F.3d at 882.
Somchat’s due process contentions fail because the BIA did not rely on his
ex-wife’s affidavit in finding him removable, and he did not demonstrate that he
was prejudiced by the lack of an interpreter at his interview with an immigration
agent. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (an alien must show
error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary decision to deny
Somchat voluntary departure, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f), and Somchat does not raise

-- 2 of 3 --

11-70152 3
a colorable constitutional claim regarding voluntary departure that would invoke
our jurisdiction, see Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.
2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --